Dit oorspronkelijk Franstalige artikel biedt een heldere analyse van wat software is en voor ons doet en van wat voor maatschappelijke samenhangen ze een uitdrukking is en welke nieuwe realiteiten het schept. This ubiquitous status of software is essential to understand some of the claims of freedom of the movement actors: it is not simply a tool (a product of the type « tool- machine » ) , but a world-system where the vast majority of human activities are slowly sliding into, every domain, from industrial production to culture, from communication to education. En analyseert waarom de Free Software beweging nou zo'n ontzettend belangrijke bijdrage is aan en tegelijk uitdrukking van de door software en internet gecreëerde gemeenschappelijke ruimte.The maintenance of this space for freedom can obviously require the intervention of « the public power »: trial, respect of license contracts, but also funding of new free software or improving/adaptation of existing free software, … but at any time, it is the ability to extend and sustain the tools, methods, standards and reflections by the very community of developers of free software which shapes the area of this « freedom to cooperate ».........The free software movement highlights the concept of « common goods »: created by communities, protected by these communities (GPL license, permanent surveillance in order to avoid the software intrusions) and promoting the expansion of recipient communities. The governance of common property, especially when it applies worldwide and billions of users can benefit, is a central issue for the redefinition of emancipation. The free software movement stands as an example.Hij noemt een lijstje bewegingen die in het voetspoor van de Free Software Beweging proberen het kennisdomein proberen los te breken uit de klauwen van de privatisering en de maatschappelijke winst van een dergelijke mogelijke bevrijding op de politieke agenda proberen te plaatsen. Een heel nieuw perspectief van een culturele revolutie opent zich. Een proces dat zich niet zo zeer uit in demonstraties of petities, maar het realiseren van nieuwe praktische projecten en samenwerkingsvormen. Wat we willen vragen we niet. We maken de ruimte om onze nieuwe cultuur te realiseren en scheppen zo voldongen feiten, die inspireren en iedereen nieuwe mogelijkheden bieden.2.The commons as a common paradigm for social movements and beyondIn het vorige artikel kwam het begrip van gemeenschappelijke (werk)ruimte of handelingsruimte al naar voren. In dit artikel wordt het begrip commoning als werkwoord helemaal uitgediept in zijn emancipatoire perspectieven:We can only promote the commons as a new narrative for the 21st century if they are identified as a common denominator by different social movements and schools of thought. In my point of view, enforcing the commons would be not only possible, but strategically intelligent. Here are 15 reasons why.Hier wat fragmenten die hopelijk nieuwsgierig maken het gehele artikel te lezen:"...when we focus on the commons, we focus on how to shift things from the market sphere to the commons sphere, we focus on how to shift authority and responsibility from state bureaucracies to the many possibilities to „govern the commons“ by their users, and we focus on many issues and ressources – as 75% percent of the worlds biomass – which are not yet commodified".....The commons can unify disparate social change movements, even those that have profoundly different dynamics, because they permit us to focus on what all common pool resources and all commoners have in common and not what separates them. Water is finite, knowledge is not. Atmosphere is global, a park is not. Ideas grow, when we share them, land does not. But all are common pool resources! Therefore none of them can be exclusive property of only one person. All are linked to a community.-----The commons recasts the ownership debate beyond the (sometimes fruitless) framing of public versus private. The claim for public ownership remains important, but have nation states really served as conscientious trustees of the commons? No. Do they protect traditional knowledge, forests, water and biodiversity? Not everywhere. There is much more than „public“ and „private“........The commons perspective is not a digital way of thinking. Its mode is not binary, 0 – 1, either – or. Nor does it focus on bottom lines like a single number of „success“. Our search is for solutions beyond opposite poles and beyond numerical metrics of „success“. It’s not simply private versus public, neither right versus left, cooperation versus competition, „invisible hand“ of the market versus plan of the State, pro technology versus anti technology.......Talking about the commons means focussing on diversity...Focussing the commons brings three big C into a new balance: Cooperation, Command and Competition. There is no cooperation without competition and vice-versa, but in a commons based society the recognition is gained by those who perform best in cooperation and not in competition. The slogan is: Out-cooperate instead of out-compete. ....The commons does not separate the ecological from the social dimension as a Green New Deal focus does....The benchmark for the integration of different political ideas within a commons paradigm is clear and threefold: (a) sustainable and respectful use of resources (social, natural, and cultural incl. digital), that means: no overuse and no under-use of common pool resources. (b) Equitable sharing of common pool resources as well as participation in all decision making processes about access, use and control of those resources and (c) the free development of creativity and individuality of people without sacrificing the collective interest....The commons don’t have one, but many centres...The commons strengthens the confidence in the creative potential of people and in the idea of inter-relationality, which means: “I need the others and the others need me.” They honour our freedom to contribute and share. This is a different kind of freedom than the market is based on. The more we contribute, more things we have access to....The commons shed new light on many old political and legal regulatory processes. It makes a big difference whether I see the environment as a commons or as a commodity to trade with. It makes a difference whether water is understood as a commons, that means closely linked to the communities needs, or not.....In the commons sector, there is a great diversity and quantity of actors. Over the past several years, international interest in the commons paradigm has quickened. Several organizations and commoners now have significant transnational constituencies (Creative Commons, Wikipedia, Free Software and Free Culture Movement, sharing platforms, the anti-mining organizations, the alliances working for a Bem-Viver approach, the worldwide movements for sustainable agriculture, the Water Commons, community gardening, citizen communication and information projects and many others). Actually, it is a spontaneous, explosive growth of diverse commons initiatives.....The problems we are confronted with are not problems of resource-availability. They are problems that arise from the current mode of production. Fortunately, in some areas, we are witnessing a shift from the capitalist mode of production (based on property, command, value exchange via money, resources and labour exploitation, dependent on growth and striving for profit) into a commons mode of production (based on possession, contribution, sharing, self interest and initiative, where the GDP is a negligible indicator and the aim is a „good life“ < bem viver). Many “Common Based Peer Production” projects are developing successfully. This is especially true for the production of knowledge (Wikipedia, Free Software, Open Design). But there is a thrilling discussion going on about how principles of commons based peer production can be transferred to the production of what we eat, wear and move with, at least to a certain extent.........The commons discourse is a discourse about cultural change. It is not a mere technological or institutional approach. Instead, it offers a new frame for political and personal thinking and acting.